Saturday, March 30, 2013

When computational hardware needs replacement, there is some discretion as to how to re-instantiate software. If the new hardware is functionally equivalent, or can emulate the old hardware, a direct copy of a large fraction of software is appealing for its potential simplicity. If not, more forethought is necessary.

In my case I'm transferring between very similar hardware, an older MacBook and a newer MacBook. There is software to manage the copy (Migration Assistant), but Apple-think has decided that the ethernet cable is to be deprecated. Like the floppy drive (iMac 1998), 8P8C is archaic technology (MacBook Pro, 2012); not white, shiny or invisible. Radio-frequency EM communication is an option, but slow -- two days is too long to be without a brain to tinker with.

The hardware and GUI interfaces on the new and old are strikingly similar, particularly the operator defined elements. It's a bit disconcerting. Is this what it feels like to be a clone, the same in more ways than is comfortable for two bodies?

This feeling is amplified by shared remote memory. Evernote and Dropbox were seamless, but Google Drive failed in recognizing the copied directory ("This is not your original Google Drive folder."), and a renamed copy of the copy was needed, with proper incantations supplied by a Google search. It was a visceral reminder that all is not truly identical to what was.

In the recent past the many steps of getting a new machine up and running was manually reviewed, perhaps while swapping numbered floppy disks and cups of tea while waiting, forcing a reflection on the process. This brave new body hides more than it reveals. There is less need to know or reknow what is unique or unknown about a fresh brain.

There will always be glitches, rare interactions between an increasing number of software and hardware combinations. Bits of gnarl, comforting reminders that a clone is an imperfect copy of an imperfect copy.

Monday, March 25, 2013

Function and reliability are primary design criteria for an expensive robot in a remote environment. Many of Curiosity's imaging systems are put to use looking at itself, not its target, Mars.

Curiosity is minimally autonomous, particularly with respect to self-inspection and troubleshooting. Robots of the future will need to include a detailed functional self-map, and the capability to compare the map with ground truth. Then they will need to decide what to do.

I'm surprised at how Curiosity's exterior design came out having a complex, art-deco look; many interacting parts means many failure modes. This photo is from a mast camera after waiting for a good sun angle.

Monday, March 11, 2013

"I saw from very close up the face of an axolotl immobile next to the glass. No transition and no surprise, I saw my face against the glass, I saw it on the outside of the tank, I saw it on the other side of the glass. Then my face drew back and I understood."

Saturday, March 2, 2013

SpaceX CRS-2is the fourth flight for SpaceX's uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft, the fifth and final flight for the company's two-stage Falcon 9 v1.0 launch vehicle, and the second SpaceX operational mission contracted to NASA under a Commercial Resupply Services contract.

The launch occurred on 1 March 2013. A minor technical issue on the Dragon module involving the thruster pods and solar panels occurred upon reaching orbit, but it was recoverable and solar panels were deployed after an hour delay.

The launch video is amazing. There is little action and only a few scene changes, but these are jaw-dropping: earth to space, first stage to second stage, orbital deployment.

Falcon 9 second stage just after ignition, illuminating the ejected first stage.